Assessment of EoI:275



EoI Metadata

Performance of EoI 275 in East Africa Drylands - Percentile by Average Score


Section 1 - Experience & strengths relevant to the proposed Indigenous territory, landscape/seascape (Total Points: 30)

A) Importance of the landscape/seascape/indigenous territory for biodiversity, with additional consideration to climate benefits.
1. Is the proposed territory/landscape/seascape a globally important area for biodiversity?

Scoring:

  • Not significant;

  • Low Significance;

  • Moderate Significance;

  • Medium-high Significance;

  • High Significance;

  • Exceptional Significance

Reviewer A: 2/5 Reviewer B: 3/5

Average: 2.5/5

Evidence A: The applicant makes mention of KIMBO, ALOLE NAPALI AND SULEDO areas which are of moderate significance to global importance

Evidence B:The proposed territory is not part of key biodiversity areas. Additionally the EOI does not indicate whether it is home to endemic species or breeding grounds for mammals or birds.


2. Is the area important for climate mitigation?

Scoring:

  • >50 t/ha - Low;

  • 50 - 100 t/ha - Moderate;

  • >100 t/ha - High

Reviewer A: NA/2 Reviewer B: 1/2

Average: NA/2

Evidence A: Low carbon values

Evidence B:Apart from mentioning in passing that the relationship between forests and climate change is intricate, the EOI does not provide robust information and figures on the importance of the area for climate mitigation.


B) Geographical focus in an area under IPLC governance.
3. Is the area held and managed by IPLC under community-based governance systems?

Scoring:

  • IPLC governance (rights and institutions) not evident;

  • Project areas are marginally under IPLC governance (spatially or politically);

  • Project areas are partially under IPLC systems of governance (spatially or politically);

  • Project areas are largely under IPLC governance, but IPLC rights and/or institutions face significant constraints;

  • Project areas are held and managed under IPLC governance systems, with some limitations;

  • Project areas are held and managed under strong and active IPLC governance systems

Reviewer A: 3/5 Reviewer B: 4/5

Average: 3.5/5

Evidence A: It is very evident that it is largely under IPLC management but also high presence of government of Tanzania controll

Evidence B:While Tanzania recognizes customary tenure and community based forest management (PFM), the EOI provides only general information about a shift from centralized to community based land and natural resources management in Africa.


4. Does the proposal explain the unique cultural significance of the area to IPLCs?

Scoring:

  • No explanation given of unique significance to IPLCs;

  • Significance of site(s) vaguely described;

  • Unique significance of project site(s) clearly explained

Reviewer A: 2/2 Reviewer B: 2/2

Average: 2/2

Evidence A: Applicant makes mention of religious and cultural sites and importance

Evidence B:Significance of the area is clearly outlined. For example, the EOI is explicit that maasai culture including ceremonies, rites of passage and architecture as well as social organization are deeply embedded in forest-related values.


C) Vulnerability of the proposed IPLCs as well as their lands/waters/natural resources to threats.
5. Is the area vulnerable to threats/current risk of negative impacts to IPLC and biodiversity without action?

Scoring:

  • No evident threats;

  • Low threats;

  • Moderate threats;

  • Medium-high threats;

  • High threats;

  • Requires urgent action

Reviewer A: 3/5 Reviewer B: 4/5

Average: 3.5/5

Evidence A: Quite a number of threats mentioned, human wildlife, rangeland degradation and poverty

Evidence B:The EOI lists threats which, left unattended, risk negatively impacting on IPLC and biodiversity. They include, rangeland deterioration and human-wildlife conflicts.


D) Opportunities for ICI results - including enabling policy conditions, positive government support and presence of successful IPLC-led conservation initiatives that could be scaled up.
6. Are enabling policy conditions in place for IPLC-led conservation in the proposed area?

Scoring:

  • Legal and policy frameworks in project areas undermine IPLC governance (either actively or through absence);

  • Legal and policy frameworks recognize limited rights for IPLCs over their lands and/or resources;

  • Legal and policy frameworks recognize rights over lands and resources but with constraints (e.g., lack implementing regulations);

  • Legal and policy frameworks actively promote the recognition of IPLC governance

Reviewer A: 2/3 Reviewer B: 3/3

Average: 2.5/3

Evidence A: There are regulations and policies but they not being implemented. That is why evictions are a common thing among the Tanzanians with very little regards for IPLCs

Evidence B:Tanzania’s legal and policy architecture actively promotes IPLC over lands and natural resources. However titling is a crucial stage towards acquiring security of tenure.


7. Is there active government support for IPLC-led conservation in the proposed country/area?

Scoring:

  • National or sub-national governments are actively opposed to IPLC-led conservation;

  • National or sub-national governments have recognized the importance of IPLC-led conservation;

  • National or sub-national governments have implemented some support for IPLC-led conservation;

  • National or sub-national governments are actively engaged in the promotion of IPLC rights and IPLC-led conservation

Reviewer A: NA/3 Reviewer B: 2/3

Average: NA/3

Evidence A: It has been in the international news that the government of Tanzania is opposed to IPLC conservation unlike what is mentioned in the proposed EoI. There is no protection for IPLCs and conservation areas in Loliondo was to be offered to rich Arab trophy shooters

Evidence B:Community forests, wildlife management areas and rangelands on which the EOI is based, receive active government support as key pillars of decentralization and community participation in the management of natural resources.


8. Are there successful IPLC-led conservation initiatives in the proposed area that provide a foundation for scaling up?

Scoring:

  • No IPLC-led conservation initiatives have been implemented;

  • Few IPLC-led conservation projects have been implemented in pilot stages only;

  • Some IPLC-led conservation projects have been implemented beyond pilot stages;

  • Relevant IPLC-led conservation projects have been well established for many years

Reviewer A: 1/3 Reviewer B: 2/3

Average: 1.5/3

Evidence A: The protection of SULEDO forest, rangeland management and wildlife management are the only ones mentioned

Evidence B:Apart form SULEDO community forest, the EOI does not provide sufficient and convincing information on the successful IPLC-lead conservation initiatives.


E) Synergies with existing investments.
9. Are there other initiatives (relevant projects) that provide complementary support for IPLC-led conservation in the geography?

Scoring:

  • Few to no complementary projects/investment;

  • Complementary projects/investments are small, or are tangentially related to project goals;

  • Complementary Projects/investments align strongly with project goals and investments are substantial

Reviewer A: 1/2 Reviewer B: 2/3

Average: 1.5/2

Evidence A: ICCAs managemen, OLENGAPA and pilote participatory rangeland management are the only ones mentioned

Evidence B:The three on-going projects listed in the EOI are strongly aligned with the project goals. They include, piloting participatory rangeland management and ICCASs management in Tanzania.



Section 1:

Reviewer A Total Score: 14/30
Reviewer B Total Score: 23/30

Average Total Score: 18.5/30



Performance of EoI 275 in East Africa Drylands - Percentile by Average Score (Section 1)


Section 2 - Quality and ability of the proposed approach and interventions to achieve transformational impact that generate the global environmental benefits (Total Points: 40)

A) Quality of proposed approach and ability to support traditional structures, knowledge and community practices in the delivery of global environmental benefits.
1. Is the proposed approach well aligned with the overall objective of the ICI to: Enhance Indigenous Peoples' and Local Communities' (IPLCs) efforts to steward land, waters and natural resources to deliver global environmental benefits?

Scoring:

  • Weakly aligned;

  • Partially aligned;

  • Well aligned;

  • Exceptionally well aligned

Reviewer A: 2/3 Reviewer B: 2/3

Average: 2/3

Evidence A: They have well aligned with objective of enhancing IPLCs effort to steward waters, land and natural resources for their benefit

Evidence B:Activities and expected results are strongly aligned to the overall objective of ICI. For example, it envisages conserving biodiversity while promoting/enhancing IPLC rights and governance of natural resources.


2. Does the EoI present a clear and convincing set of activities and results?

Scoring:

  • The objectives and approach for this project lack clarity and cohesion, and/or do not appear to be realistic for the context;

  • Activities & results defined but logic (Theory of Change) is incomplete;

  • Activities and results are well-defined and cohesive but some aspects require clarification;

  • The project has clear objectives and a cohesive approach with relevant activities for the context and timeline

Reviewer A: 2/6 Reviewer B: 6/6

Average: 4/6

Evidence A: the activities are convincing but they lack a ToC

Evidence B:Activities and expected results reflect well thought out project objectives and a cohesive approach to their implementation.


3. Will the project (objectives and activities) contribute to overcoming identified threats and putting in place necessary enabling opportunities for IPLC-led conservation?

Scoring:

  • Objectives and activities do not clearly address identified threats and opportunities;

  • Contributions to addressing the threats and opportunities are low;

  • Contributions to addressing threats and enabling conditions are slightly over-ambitious;

  • The impact on threats and enabling conditions can be realistically accomplished and are sufficiently ambitious for the projects' context

Reviewer A: 3/3 Reviewer B: 3/3

Average: 3/3

Evidence A: well the only missing component is how the IPLCs are going to be protected from the regular evictions, this is a worldwide known threat that is not at all addressed by the EoI

Evidence B:Impacts identified in the EOI can be realistically be accomplished. This is based on the activities proposed. They are aligned to results and challenges identified.


4. Are the activities achievable within a $500,000 to $2,000,000 USD budget range in a period of 5 years of project execution?

Scoring:

  • Activities/results not aligned with EoI range of investment;

  • Activities/results Partially aligned with EoI range of investment ;

  • Activities/results Well aligned with EoI range of investment ;

  • Activities/results Exceptionally well aligned with EoI range of investment

Reviewer A: 2/3 Reviewer B: 2/3

Average: 2/3

Evidence A: Well aligned in my opinion as per the EoI

Evidence B:13. Most of the activities identified are realistic and can be implemented within the budget line indicated above. Significantly, they do not include reforming legislation which usually takes longer time


5. Does the EoI include significant and concrete sources of co-financing?

Scoring:

  • None;

  • Small;

  • Moderate;

  • Significant

Reviewer A: 1/3 Reviewer B: NA/3

Average: NA/3

Evidence A: The only sources outlined are UNDP and IFAD and no amounts are mentioned

Evidence B:The three ongoing projects funded by IFAD and UNDP respectively are well aligned and complementary to the proposed project.


B) Potential of the proposed activities to achieve IPLC-led transformational impact that generate global environmental benefits.
6. Are the estimated Global Environmental Benefits (GEF core indicators) substantial and realistic?

Scoring:

  • Not provided;

  • Very Low (below 10,000 Ha);

  • Moderate (between 100,000 - 500,000 Ha);

  • High (between 500,000 - 1,000,000 Ha);

  • Very high above 1,000,000 Ha

Reviewer A: 3/5 Reviewer B: 3/5

Average: 3/5

Evidence A: Between 100,000 to 500,000Ha.

Evidence B:The project envisions working on around 180,000 h. This is moderate based on the criteria above.


7. Are the additional cultural and livelihoods results contributing to project objectives?

Scoring:

  • No provided cultural or livelihood indicators for the project;

  • Indicators proposed but are not clearly aligned with project goals;

  • Indicators proposed and are moderately aligned with project goals;

  • Additional cultural and/or livelihood indicators clearly derive from project goals

Reviewer A: 2/3 Reviewer B: 2/3

Average: 2/3

Evidence A: very well done here and the extent well explained

Evidence B:The EIO proposes up scaling cultural practices. However explanations given are not robust enough.


8. Does the EoI provide a clear and robust vision for long-term sustainability?

Scoring:

  • Vision for long-term sustainability not provided;

  • This project does not seem to have a clear long-term impact;

  • This project will create medium-term benefits for biodiversity and IPLC governance, which future funding will hopefully build upon;

  • This project will ensure long-term benefits to biodiversity and IPLC systems of governance

Reviewer A: 2/3 Reviewer B: 2/3

Average: 2/3

Evidence A: They make mention of a sustainability plan through capacity building of the institution and collaboration with other actors including the government

Evidence B:Sustainability plans proposed in the EOI include involvement of local government department and institutionalizing local groups. The latter is unclear and in general the vision is not robust enough.


C) IPLC-led conservation that advances national and global environmental priorities.
9. Does the EoI build on and contribute to national priorities as defined in NBSAPs and/or NDCs?

Scoring:

  • Contributions not provided;

  • The project is weakly related to either national priorities;

  • The project appears to be tangentially related to national priorities;

  • The proposal reflects an understanding of the national policy priorities and clearly positions the project in relation to those priorities

Reviewer A: 3/3 Reviewer B: 2/3

Average: 2.5/3

Evidence A: very well summarised in the document

Evidence B:EOI does not convincingly link the on the national and global environmental priorities. However, it reflects understanding of obligations arising from the CBD in particular.


D) Demonstrated gender mainstreaming in all activities.
10. Does the EoI provide a clear and robust approach to gender mainstreaming?

Scoring:

  • Gender mainstreaming approach is absent;

  • Gender mainstreaming approach is weak;

  • Gender mainstreaming approach is moderately thought through (if there are a few activities as 'add ons');

  • Significant and well-thought through approach to gender mainstreaming

Reviewer A: 2/3 Reviewer B: 2/3

Average: 2/3

Evidence A: The have a gender mainstreaming policy in place

Evidence B:While effective gender inclusion presupposes ensuring women take part in decisions affecting their lives, the EOI is only moderately clear because it focuses on participation without specifying at what stage in the decision making value chain.


E) Innovation and potential to scale up.
11. Do the proposed activities and results demonstrate innovation and potential for transformative results at scale?

Scoring:

  • None demonstrated;

  • Low demonstrated potential;

  • Moderate demonstrated potential;

  • Medium-high demonstrated potential;

  • High demonstrated potential;

  • Exceptional demonstrated potential

Reviewer A: 3/5 Reviewer B: 4/5

Average: 3.5/5

Evidence A: May have potential for scale up due to past experience

Evidence B:The area proposed is significant and large enough, with challenges that put IPLC and biodiversity at risk. Accordingly, proposed project reflects not only innovation but also potential for transformative results.



Section 2:

Reviewer A Total Score: 25/40
Reviewer B Total Score: 28/40

Average Total Score: 26.5/40



Performance of EoI 275 in East Africa Drylands - Percentile by Average Score (Section 2)


Section 3 - Qualifications and experience of the Organization (Total Points: 30)

A) Indigenous Peoples or Local Community organization legally recognized under national laws.
1. Is the EoI led by an IPLC organization?

Scoring:

  • IPLC appear to be beneficiaries only;

  • Combination/partnership of IPLC organizations and NGOs, and plans to build IPLC capacity over the project term are clear;

  • IPLC-led approach, NGOs in more limited, defined roles (such as fiduciary);

  • Fully IPLC composed and led approach

Reviewer A: 4/6 Reviewer B: 2/6

Average: 3/6

Evidence A: There are other collaborative partners but IPLCs generally are beneficiaries

Evidence B:The Lead submitting organization is not IPLC-lead- its implementing partners is. The EOI omits to provide information on the main areas of expertise and experiences of staff. Accordingly, suffices to say that the partnership is clear with the implementing partner.


2. Does the lead proponent demonstrate on-ground leadership relevant to the proposed work?

Scoring:

  • None demonstrated;

  • Limited demonstration of relevant on-ground leadership;

  • Demonstrated on-ground leadership relevant to the proposed work;

  • Exceptional and long-standing on-ground leadership relevant to the proposed work

Reviewer A: 4/6 Reviewer B: 4/6

Average: 4/6

Evidence A: They have demonstrated leadership vey well

Evidence B:Based on the partnership and references of previous projects, it is clear that the main proponent demonstrates on the ground leadership relevant to the proposed project.


C) Proven relevant experience in working with IPLC networks, alliances and organizations/ strength of partnerships on the ground.
3. Does EoI demonstrate that the lead proponent has strong partnerships, particularly with other IPLC organizations, to carry out the work?

Scoring:

  • No partners defined;

  • No IPLC partners identified;

  • IPLC organizations are listed as implementing partners but without clear scope (roles in project design or governance);

  • IPLC organizations are listed as implementing partners with clear roles (in project design or governance);

  • Strong IPLC partnerships that play a central role in design, governance, and implementation of the project;

  • Strong IPLC partnerships have a central role in design, governance and implementation of the project and linkages with national or regional IPO networks

Reviewer A: 2/5 Reviewer B: 4/5

Average: 3/5

Evidence A: Well defined partnership but roles not well specified

Evidence B:Partners listed in the EOI are strongly rooted in the proposed land. Accordingly, the lead proponent has strong IPLC partnerships.


D) Technical expertise and capacity to address environmental problems, root causes and barriers.
4. Does EoI demonstrate technical capacity of lead proponent and partners to deliver the proposed results?

Scoring:

  • No skills demonstrated;

  • The skills and experiences outlined have little or no relation to the project activities;

  • There is some lack of clarity or some gaps in the capacities necessary to implement the project;

  • The activities clearly show how they plan to fill capacity gaps over the course of the project;

  • They seem to have adequate skills and capacity for the project but do not have experience with GEF projects;

  • The lead organization and project partners clearly communicate that they have all the skills and experience necessary to implement the project activities. Also, have past experience with GEF funded projects.

Reviewer A: 2/5 Reviewer B: 2/5

Average: 2/5

Evidence A: It seems as if they have slightly over two years, experience, 2017, and 2019, from UNDP funding there is need to demonstrate experience to handle such a huge project

Evidence B:While the main proponent has experience implementing a GEF project, qualifications of implementing staff are not listed hence casting a shadow on the technical capacity.


E) Project Management capacity.
5. Does the EoI demonstrate project & financial management capacity needed for scale of proposed effort?

Scoring:

  • Very limited (no criteria met);

  • Some capacity but would require support (1/3 criteria);

  • Moderate capacity (2/3 criteria met);

  • Very strong (all criteria met) with demonstrated past performance

Reviewer A: 4/6 Reviewer B: 6/6

Average: 5/6

Evidence A: They have handled two projects of over 500,000 USDs as per the EoI

Evidence B:The organization strongly demonstrates project and financial management capacity. For example, external audits are conducted regularly. Also its annual budget almost 800,000$ per annum.


6. Does lead organization have experience with safeguards and other standards required by GEF?

Scoring:

  • Answered no;

  • Answered yes but with weak or lacking explanation to the extent;

  • Answered yes with clear explanation of the extent

Reviewer A: 1/2 Reviewer B: 1/2

Average: 1/2

Evidence A: Yes but the extent is weak, slightly over two years only

Evidence B:The answer is yes but the explanation provided is not convincing/robust enough.



Section 3:

Reviewer A Total Score: 17/30
Reviewer B Total Score: 19/30

Average Total Score: 26.5/30



Performance of EoI 275 in East Africa Drylands - Percentile by Average Score (Section 3)